View Poll Results: Do you agree or disagree with the action undertaken by MKEbound?
Agree
766
75.92%
Disagree
144
14.27%
Neither agree nor disagree
75
7.43%
Not sure
24
2.38%
Voters: 1009. You may not vote on this poll
I was detained at the TSA checkpoint for about 25 minutes today
Sep 26, 2006, 8:59 pm
#91
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Northwest Georgia
Programs: Delta, Hilton, ICH, Hertz
Posts: 302
Originally Posted by kaukau
You may not write derogatory statements about the IRS on your tax return check. It's a crime.
Sep 26, 2006, 8:59 pm
#92
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ANC
Programs: AS MVPG 75K, UA 2P
Posts: 1,453
I'm stunned: www.kiphawleyisanidiot.com was still available for purchase up until, err, about three and a half minutes ago 
.
.
Sep 26, 2006, 9:01 pm
#93
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: MKE, formerly the closest FT-er to LAX
Programs: Marriott Gold. Usually WN or DL if in the air.
Posts: 704
Some notes from a fellow Wisconsinite:
Wisconsin has no law requiring an individual who is not operating a motor vehicle to provide identification on demand. However, (1) law enforcement almost universally requests it, which is not illegal and, more importantly here (2) since the OP was attempting to enter the sterile area, he was required to provide photo ID by a combination of federal law and the carrier's contract of carriage.
Not giving your address would be a somewhat moot point, because law enforcement in Wisconsin generally runs names through their databases only using name (last/first/MI), race, gender, and date of birth. Even though you provided your passport, that information is enough to give your Wisconsin DL #, most recent address on file with WisDOT, and your driving record and any Wisconsin criminal history.
Wisconsin has an EXTREMELY vague definition of "disorderly conduct." (DC) It is "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or otherwise disorderly conduct, whether in a public or a private place, in circumstances where the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance." Had you gotten on the bad side of the deputy, I would not have been surprised to see you receive a DC ticket. Cops and prosecutors in Wisconsin love it because it is the perfect citation of last resort, when they want to "do something." Keep in mind the Milwaukee County DA could still decide to charge you with DC, if the sheriff refers it for prosecution. My personal opinion is that is unlikely.
For now, let's keep in mind the bigger picture here. The OP was not arrested, cited, or fined on the spot. It took 25 minutes, but so far we have the "correct" outcome. That is what the law requires. I agree the TSA employee was fully out of bounds, but unfortunately, incompetence is not yet a crime.
Wisconsin has no law requiring an individual who is not operating a motor vehicle to provide identification on demand. However, (1) law enforcement almost universally requests it, which is not illegal and, more importantly here (2) since the OP was attempting to enter the sterile area, he was required to provide photo ID by a combination of federal law and the carrier's contract of carriage.
Not giving your address would be a somewhat moot point, because law enforcement in Wisconsin generally runs names through their databases only using name (last/first/MI), race, gender, and date of birth. Even though you provided your passport, that information is enough to give your Wisconsin DL #, most recent address on file with WisDOT, and your driving record and any Wisconsin criminal history.
Wisconsin has an EXTREMELY vague definition of "disorderly conduct." (DC) It is "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or otherwise disorderly conduct, whether in a public or a private place, in circumstances where the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance." Had you gotten on the bad side of the deputy, I would not have been surprised to see you receive a DC ticket. Cops and prosecutors in Wisconsin love it because it is the perfect citation of last resort, when they want to "do something." Keep in mind the Milwaukee County DA could still decide to charge you with DC, if the sheriff refers it for prosecution. My personal opinion is that is unlikely.
For now, let's keep in mind the bigger picture here. The OP was not arrested, cited, or fined on the spot. It took 25 minutes, but so far we have the "correct" outcome. That is what the law requires. I agree the TSA employee was fully out of bounds, but unfortunately, incompetence is not yet a crime.
Sep 26, 2006, 9:02 pm
#94
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Lahaina, Hawai'i
Programs: HA Pua. Platinum WP, PR, QF, UA, AA, DL, NW Prince Preferred
Posts: 4,786
Originally Posted by GeorgiaRebel
They always cash my check made out to the Infernal Revenue Service
Sep 26, 2006, 9:08 pm
#95
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by mizzou65201
Not giving your address would be a somewhat moot point, because law enforcement in Wisconsin generally runs names through their databases only using name (last/first/MI), race, gender, and date of birth. Even though you provided your passport, that information is enough to give your Wisconsin DL #, most recent address on file with WisDOT, and your driving record and any Wisconsin criminal history.
Originally Posted by mizzou65201
Wisconsin has an EXTREMELY vague definition of "disorderly conduct." (DC) It is "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or otherwise disorderly conduct, whether in a public or a private place, in circumstances where the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance." Had you gotten on the bad side of the deputy, I would not have been surprised to see you receive a DC ticket. Cops and prosecutors in Wisconsin love it because it is the perfect citation of last resort, when they want to "do something." Keep in mind the Milwaukee County DA could still decide to charge you with DC, if the sheriff refers it for prosecution. My personal opinion is that is unlikely.
For now, let's keep in mind the bigger picture here. The OP was not arrested, cited, or fined on the spot. It took 25 minutes, but so far we have the "correct" outcome. That is what the law requires. I agree the TSA employee was fully out of bounds, but unfortunately, incompetence is not yet a crime.
For now, let's keep in mind the bigger picture here. The OP was not arrested, cited, or fined on the spot. It took 25 minutes, but so far we have the "correct" outcome. That is what the law requires. I agree the TSA employee was fully out of bounds, but unfortunately, incompetence is not yet a crime.
Sep 26, 2006, 9:08 pm
#96
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Deleted
Last edited by Bart; Jan 5, 2008 at 9:13 am
Sep 26, 2006, 9:11 pm
#97
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Northwest Georgia
Programs: Delta, Hilton, ICH, Hertz
Posts: 302
Originally Posted by ColKurtz
I think what you did is ridiculous and stupid. I think detaining you for about 25 minutes is about what you deserve. Maybe a little too short. I would have preferred they annoy you for a good 45 minutes or so - hopefully making you miss your flight.
Are you now for using the police (using a broad definition here for police) to annoy anyone you disagree with or anyone who expresses an opinion that annoys you? This is still America and whether you like it or not, people have the right to challenge their government officials and those who are working as their underlings. If you don't like this arrangement, work to change it to be more like the socialist countries where this is the norm.
Originally Posted by ColKurtz
First, you obviously were looking for a confrontation. Either the screeners will not notice what you wrote, or not care - what's the point in that case -- or they will notice and confront you. And the point of your desired confrontation is... to express your opinion that their boss is an idiot? What does that accomplish? Are you just an attention whore, or do you think you're planting some kind of seed of discontent that will spread and lead to Hawley's resignation.
Originally Posted by ColKurtz
Second, and more serious, your sophomoric little stunt distracted the people who are responsible for our security. If someone bent on harming travellers was behind you in line that day, their odds of getting through security were probably much higher than normal -- for the simple fact that you were consuming the attention of several security and police officers.
Originally Posted by ColKurtz
You should be ashamed of yourself. Grow up.
; you should be ashamed for condemning someone who dared to exercise his rights and stood firm in the face of official government persecution. ^
Sep 26, 2006, 9:12 pm
#98
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by Bart
Not so fast. The wearing of the swastika (and I am disgusted by all it represents and the atrocities associated with it) in theory is nothing more than a symbol on a piece of cloth. In theory, according to the free speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment, there should be no legal basis preventing someone from wearing an armband swastika at a synogogue, and, theoretically, the people inside the synogogue should have no legal basis to have the armband wearer removed or otherwise singled out.
Originally Posted by Bart
Now, if you read my post, you will see that I agree the supervisor and police officer reacted poorly to the Kip Hawley writing. And my bottom line was that they should have been more professional. However, I also questioned why anyone would want to pee in the pool, throw more fuel on the fire and otherwise deliberately leave the toilet seat up even within his constitutionally-protected rights. Your objection to the swastika example I used seems to justify biased actions against someone expressing an unpopular or offensive statement. For the sake of this example, all the offender in my case has done is wear the armband and hasn't verbalized any statements, made any gestures or committed any act other than simply wear an offensive symbol. I am surprised that you, of all people, would react in such a manner and not see the general free speech principle in my example.
Last edited by GUWonder; Sep 26, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Sep 26, 2006, 9:14 pm
#99
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 99654
Programs: Many
Posts: 6,450
Originally Posted by Yaatri
MKEbound, you can be arrested for leaking a secret that Hawley is an idiot. 
but an understatement.
and possibly an insult to some people with a below normal intelligence quotient.
Sep 26, 2006, 9:16 pm
#100
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Deleted
Last edited by Bart; Jan 5, 2008 at 9:13 am
Sep 26, 2006, 9:16 pm
#101
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Commuting around the mid-atlantic and rust-belt on any number of RJs
Programs: TSA Random Selectee Platinum, * Gold, SPG/HH/MR mid-tier, and a tiny bag of pretzels.
Posts: 9,255
Originally Posted by Bart
This is like showing up to a synagogue with a swastika on an armband. You haven't threatened anyone, but you've certainly inflamed them even if you're within the limits of your First Amendment rights.
I'll do you one better: anyone (and this includes TSA employees) who does not believe that Hawley is an idiot is, themself, an idiot. Including the moron who got his panties in a wad over it.
Sep 26, 2006, 9:23 pm
#102
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Northwest Georgia
Programs: Delta, Hilton, ICH, Hertz
Posts: 302
Originally Posted by Superguy
That supervisor should be placed on LWOP pending an investigation and terminated if found guilty.
It was unconstitutional and you and I both know that.
It was unconstitutional and you and I both know that.
I predict that things will only get worse as we approach the holidays and some physical confrontations may result. Unfortunately, the PAX will be the ones to suffer when this happens and TSA will only demand more security rather than addressing the real problems that exist.
JMHO
- Alan
Sep 26, 2006, 9:25 pm
#103
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by Bart
LOL. Nice dodge. Actually, I think you are incorrect about that. I think that unless an area is posted as private property, a place of worship is considered open to the public.
Hey, if this topic is too difficult for you, I'll back off.
Hey, if this topic is too difficult for you, I'll back off.
I can't go into a church and perform an animal sacrifice anytime I want if the church doesn't want it. Why not? Because the Church can put into play its own property rights and restrict use.
Sep 26, 2006, 9:29 pm
#104
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Deleted
Last edited by Bart; Jan 5, 2008 at 9:19 am
Sep 26, 2006, 9:30 pm
#105
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Southern California
Programs: DL: 3.8 MM, Marriott: Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 24,575
This thread has veered waaaaaaay off-topic.
And I've had to delete several posts.
Please stay on topic here and drop the Nazi lingo or we'll have to close this thread.
Thanks for your cooperation.
________________________
Cholula
Travel Safety/Security Forum Moderator
And I've had to delete several posts.
Please stay on topic here and drop the Nazi lingo or we'll have to close this thread.
Thanks for your cooperation.
________________________
Cholula
Travel Safety/Security Forum Moderator